The Main Problem of PF2


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

pjrogers wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
Dont be that person who,cant get over their ex and compairs everything to that old relationship.
The problem with this analogy is that I'm actually very happy with my current relationship. I'm no more looking for a new spouse/partner than I am desirous of a radical, revolutionary PF2e of the sort presented in the playtest document.

My question to you is, why are you playtesting PF2. If you are happy with PF1 then do it up man. Clearly you mentally made a choice to say if this isn't PF1 then I dont like It. I was under the impression that PF2 was going to be made as a new product and not an expansion. If you are happy with PF1 then why are you arguing on these forums? I mean shouldn't it be hey pazio I'm happy with PF1 I dobt care for PF2 so I'm not going to playtest.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
jquest716 wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
Dont be that person who,cant get over their ex and compairs everything to that old relationship.
The problem with this analogy is that I'm actually very happy with my current relationship. I'm no more looking for a new spouse/partner than I am desirous of a radical, revolutionary PF2e of the sort presented in the playtest document.
My question to you is, why are you playtesting PF2. If you are happy with PF1 then do it up man. Clearly you mentally made a choice to say if this isn't PF1 then I dont like It. I was under the impression that PF2 was going to be made as a new product and not an expansion. If you are happy with PF1 then why are you arguing on these forums? I mean shouldn't it be hey pazio I'm happy with PF1 I dobt care for PF2 so I'm not going to playtest.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Just because we are happy with PF1 we are not allowed to playtest the successor to try and make it the best game possible under the circumstances?

I might have no need in the new systemm but I can still give insight on what is working for me and what is not.

I have over two decades of experience with RPGs, as a player and as a GM, I see no reason why this experience can't be used fo feedback on a new product. Especially if parts of this product are adventures that might be of use for me in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

That is - I hope we can get a nice 'dev notes - not offical' area where they can just say 'this is how we do it - if you aren't happy with it - then do it your own way - but the only answer you get from us is this'.

And then clear out the FAQ queue.

Scarab Sages

I am arguing that if you constantlt compare PF2 to PF1 and not reconize that it is a completely different set then you should stick with PF1. But if you can say oh you know this doesnt work in the context of the how the rules those are valid arguments. Like the ranger class severely is lacking the ability to be a bow user out the gate as per the way the set up the class. That is a valid argument imho. But if you say oh rangers suck,because in PF1 I could do this, this, this and this and with the unchanined rules I can do this this and this also. Yes I get it PF1 isnt PF2. All in all argue this book and comparing the 2 are like comparing apples to oranges.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
jquest716 wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
jquest716 wrote:
Dont be that person who,cant get over their ex and compairs everything to that old relationship.
The problem with this analogy is that I'm actually very happy with my current relationship. I'm no more looking for a new spouse/partner than I am desirous of a radical, revolutionary PF2e of the sort presented in the playtest document.
My question to you is, why are you playtesting PF2. If you are happy with PF1 then do it up man. Clearly you mentally made a choice to say if this isn't PF1 then I dont like It. I was under the impression that PF2 was going to be made as a new product and not an expansion. If you are happy with PF1 then why are you arguing on these forums? I mean shouldn't it be hey pazio I'm happy with PF1 I dobt care for PF2 so I'm not going to playtest.

Because I would like to have a voice in the direction that Paizo decides to go with PF. If I am unenthusiastic about PF2e in its current form, I should be denied such a voice?

I could reply, “if you are [un]happy with PF1, then do it up man.” Create your own rules, find a different set of rules, you have lots of options besides insisting that Paizo produce a PF2e that I and others are leery of in its current form.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From what I'm seeing the biggest problem is that the new rules level the playing field too much. There's no real oportunity for the specialist to shine.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zi Mishkal wrote:
From what I'm seeing the biggest problem is that the new rules level the playing field too much. There's no real oportunity for the specialist to shine.

Just like Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said:

"Here, you are all equally worthless."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Krolak wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:
From what I'm seeing the biggest problem is that the new rules level the playing field too much. There's no real oportunity for the specialist to shine.

Just like Gunnery Sergeant Hartman said:

"Here, you are all equally worthless."

"Everyone is special Dash"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem by far is that in PF1 you were a character looking for magical loot to enhance your abilities...

In PF2 you are a magical weapon looking for an adventurer to enhance your abilities.

80% of your performance is your magical weapon... gear, skills, abilities, choices, are the other 20%.

I simple left the playtest. If in one of the interations they change it, i may come back and try the new system.


KyleS wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Beast Weener wrote:


Good point. The question, though, is how far they leap into the detail-soft side of the ruleset spectrum. 5E really has that staked out and they also have the only mainstream name recognition in all of RPGS. This Pathfinder player base, at least as far as I can conjecture, are mostly still-hardened edition warriors who preferred the detail and character differentiation of 3.5 over 4E. I think they'd be willing to follow Paizo to a PF1 - 5E midpoint with PF2, but the playtest seems to be a little too far afield. There's a lot of concepts in the Playtest that smack of some of the big 4E Sins people fled from. And if you don't keep enough of the base, who's going to lead the wayward 5E children back home?

Brutally speaking, it's only the shrinking PF1 base that cares about where WotC touched them in 2008. New players don't even know something like 4e existed.
Don't think that's brutal, just honest. Accurate, too, but it is what paid for the house. To go back though, if you lose that base completely and you can't differentiate sufficiently from 5e to get new players that leaves you with...who? I dunno. It's not like our armchair market research is founded in hard numbers. How much of the base really care about X over Y. I guess that's why they're spending a year on this.
I think you guys bring up good points. I certainly agree with you Gorbacz in the shrinking base. In the last 36 hours, I've seen so much hate that it seriously just makes me not even want to care about playing anymore. Like at all period despite how much this game has done for me on a personal level. But all the hate I've seen centers around the few core things: customization that's been built over 10 years, a system that's been in place for almost 20 years, and a fear of absolute complete change with no allowance of possible difference. 4e was a great first step to bring in new people. The rules were a lot easier to follow, the mechanics were...

Heretic


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RafaelBraga wrote:

The biggest problem by far is that in PF1 you were a character looking for magical loot to enhance your abilities...

In PF2 you are a magical weapon looking for an adventurer to enhance your abilities.

80% of your performance is your magical weapon... gear, skills, abilities, choices, are the other 20%.

I simple left the playtest. If in one of the interations they change it, i may come back and try the new system.

I mean as a good example; You NEED Handwraps of Mighty Fists. There's no getting around it as a Monk. I mean there is but it'd be easier to get Mighty Fists than trying to use Mutagens.

Now we can debate how much a Monk(or unarmed) needed Might Fists in PF1 but there's no room for debate here. You're simply behind if you don't pick it up/find it/loot it/etc.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Were I to be a new player and choose between PF and 5e? 5e it is, no contest.

And if you were a new player and had to choose between an established 5e with the well-known D&D brand name or something new and similar in scope but without said brand name, I think you'd also choose 5e, no contest. Pathfinder found its niche as so many were disillusioned with 4e...with D&D's name recognition, it's gonna be hard to sway existing 5e fans as well as those new to the hobby. I'd guess many of the PF1 players that jumped to 5e upon release might've been the some of the same that jumped from 4e...

I don't know the RPG market well, so maybe this is a move that Paizo felt that they had to make...but I think the one group of consumers they cannot afford to alienate is their existing customers/players...don't think it'll matter if they expand their base some but lose too many of their current base in doing so. It's gonna be interesting to see how the playtest goes and what changes may or may not come about as a result...also be interesting to see how Paizo walks the line between attracting new customers while keeping their old ones...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man. Basic edition Dnd fixed weapon damage back in 1986 with their weapon mastery tables. You gained a proficiency in a specific weapon and there were scaled damage with that weapon (along with cool tricks like tripping, disarm, etc based on that weapon). Moreover the tricks differed whether you were fighting someone with a weapon or a monster with natural attacks.

They simply needed to drop that into PF2 and done. Problem solved, everyone has a beer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Man. Basic edition Dnd fixed weapon damage back in 1986 with their weapon mastery tables. You gained a proficiency in a specific weapon and there were scaled damage with that weapon (along with cool tricks like tripping, disarm, etc based on that weapon). Moreover the tricks differed whether you were fighting someone with a weapon or a monster with natural attacks.

They simply needed to drop that into PF2 and done. Problem solved, everyone has a beer.

Oh we don't want to lock people out of options now do we?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


But the grinding negativity, the incessant waling and gnashing of teeth...enough, already! There's a huge difference between offering suggestions for improvement and screaming your displeasure at the top of your lungs ad nauseam.

We are in a forum - using text - even if someone is sitting in a room screaming - you wouldn't hear them, you are assigning attributes to the text that fit your viewpoint, instead of looking at the complaints in a neutral view.

I see plenty of people berating posters for 'wrong tone' or 'wrong use of words' but there is more than enough of the opposite - just because a comment is negative doesn't mean it's 'incessant waling (wailing?) and gnashing of teeth' - that's way more extreme than any negative view I've seen so far - if you feel that way flag a post and move on, and that brings me to my final point here:

If you want to cut down on the negative responses, stop finding every single one of them and dressing them down like they just took a squat over your birthday cake. Negative opinions are opinions, Paizo wants to see them, and when you do a point by point dress down (instead of discuss) the negative opinions or dismiss them you cause people to double down and jump into the conversation to attack/defend. Your post is an example. It's not helpful, nor does it add to the conversation, nor is it likely to ever result in someone saying 'hey mayhap I should change the tone of my post after being called a 'wailing, whining, baby'?'

There are a brigade of posters that seem to think it's their job to respond to every negative comment - if you have something to add that helps the discussion, great, if you don't then all you are doing is amplifying the negative comment and causing the other person grief that their opinion was dismissed. If you aren't Paizo and you don't like the comment, move on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Your post is an example. It's not helpful, nor does it add to the conversation, nor is it likely to ever result in someone saying 'hey mayhap I should change the tone of my post after being called a 'wailing, whining, baby'?'

I say this -- again -- as someone who isn't a current Paizo customer and is still on the fence about 2E: If the shoe fits...

Seriously...take a breath and parse that. I'm NOT a Pathfinder fan. But the drama has gotten to be a bit much, even FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKELY AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS. No one can hear the signal in the geyser angry noise.

I don't see a geyser of angry noise - I see a forum full of concerns about a product that most of us love and want to make better. I am not out to convince you to buy this product, and don't care if you do. I do care if the playtest is made worse by you trying to tell people to stop putting in negative input - which Paizo asked for.

Again if you feel a post breaks the forum rules - report it and move on. Paizo wanted all feedback - not 'feedback unless it's all negative, then only some'

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.
So much this.

Agreed! Furthermore, I don't see scaling skill bonuses for everyone a problem; rather it's only natural that, for example, a mid-level barbarian would have learned something beyond his "comfort zone" from his allies and experience (adventures), whether it's Thievery, Arcana or Religion. Not only has he likely met and spent a lot of (down)time with all kinds of people, he's also encountered a bazillion traps/hazards, been hit by a like number of spells and looted evil tombs and shrines. And he probably wants to learn more about things that help him to survive, even though they might feel weird, discomforting or even alien to him. I know I would, if my life depended on understanding more about spells and how they work, or how to identify the symbols and runes used by evil faiths.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Your post is an example. It's not helpful, nor does it add to the conversation, nor is it likely to ever result in someone saying 'hey mayhap I should change the tone of my post after being called a 'wailing, whining, baby'?'

I say this -- again -- as someone who isn't a current Paizo customer and is still on the fence about 2E: If you don't want to be berated like an angry child, then don't behave like one.

Seriously...take a breath and parse this: I'm NOT a Pathfinder fan. I'm not a part of your so-called "brigade." But the drama has gotten so loud that even PEOPLE WHO LIKELY AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS can't hear you over the the geyser of bile.

To which the solution is clearly writing IN ALL CAPS and berating people. Honestly, if you can't take so many different persons having negative first impressions, just do something else for a few hours until you've cooled down. I can see you exploding right now in different threads and you are not doing neither the general tone on the boards nor your reputation any favors.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.
So much this.
Agreed! Furthermore, I don't see scaling skill bonuses for everyone a problem; rather it's only natural that, for example, a mid-level barbarian would have learned something beyond his "comfort zone" from his allies and experience (adventures), whether it's Thievery, Arcana or Religion. Not only has he likely met and spent a lot of (down)time with all kinds of people, he's also encountered a bazillion traps/hazards, been hit by a like number of spells and looted evil tombs and shrines. And he probably wants to learn more about things that help him to survive, even though they might feel weird, discomforting or even alien to him. I know I would, if my life depended on understanding more about spells and how they work, or how to identify the symbols and runes used by evil faiths.

And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance. Heck with Skill feats, if you try to do it you could end up eating a worse result or not gettting as much out of it.

And we known how much people like getting EVERYTHING out of something in PF1.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:


And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance.

Yes, but if you want to sneak around the dungeon, the session doesn't turn into a one-on-one adventure of that sole person with +27 Stealth and the GM sitting in the other room for 2 hours with the rest of the table trying to kill the time and wondering just how exactly will they recover the scout's body if things go south.

It's "realistic", maybe. It's not fun, certainly.

Ditto for climbing, swimming or any other skill where the swinginess of 3.5/PF1 skill system meant that it was next to impossible to have a party where everybody was competent in those skills on elementary level.

Double ditto for new players, who aren't turbo edgelord optimizers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


Yes, because it isn't ranting that's the problem, but the people now asking that it stop?

I see only one person ranting around here. so, please stop


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance.

Yes, but if you want to sneak around the dungeon, the session doesn't turn into a one-on-one adventure of that sole person with +27 Stealth and the GM sitting in the other room for 2 hours with the rest of the table trying to kill the time and wondering just how exactly will they recover the scout's body if things go south.

Ditto for climbing, swimming or any other skill where the swinginess of 3.5/PF1 skill system meant that it was next to impossible to have a party where everybody was competent in those skills on elementary level.

I'm going to try to address this without magic.

Sneak goes first, double backs to party. They have 27 in Stealthy, do they have it in Disable Device and Perception? Call up the guy that does when you hit a lock and who knows maybe that Sneak guy didn't see the ooze on the ceiling. Or sneak forward, double back to room with buddies after getting monster/cultist attention and ambush there.

Can't climb? Rope+Someone that can unless you're in a rush. Swimming is a bit harder but if they aren't in heavy armor should be able to help them out just like Climbing unless the check got made stupidly high.

I don't see why having everyone competent in PF2 is going to change "You're the best you do it" mentality. PF1 might have fostered it but I doubt your Wizard is going to allow you to try the Arcane check.

I'm kinda reminded of what people told me about things in PF1. "You can but why would you want to."

So yeah. Your Barbarian can sneak. Why they would want to and risk still messing it up for the person that is the Sneaky guy is beyond me.

Only upside is if no one is playing that specialty and let's be honest, such games are interesting but not wide spread. I've wanted to try a Fighter only game for awhile now so that's easier in PF2 I suppose but it's not the norm.

Dark Archive

MerlinCross wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks
I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.
So much this.
Agreed! Furthermore, I don't see scaling skill bonuses for everyone a problem; rather it's only natural that, for example, a mid-level barbarian would have learned something beyond his "comfort zone" from his allies and experience (adventures), whether it's Thievery, Arcana or Religion. Not only has he likely met and spent a lot of (down)time with all kinds of people, he's also encountered a bazillion traps/hazards, been hit by a like number of spells and looted evil tombs and shrines. And he probably wants to learn more about things that help him to survive, even though they might feel weird, discomforting or even alien to him. I know I would, if my life depended on understanding more about spells and how they work, or how to identify the symbols and runes used by evil faiths.

And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance. Heck with Skill feats, if you try to do it you could end up eating a worse result or not gettting as much out of it.

And we known how much people like getting EVERYTHING out of something in PF1.

Well, I don't know which kind of campaigns don't involve *any* downtime (especially nights of drunken revelry) in inns or taverns, and think of all those long hours at campfires when the PCs probably do more than just stare in the flames while grunting at each other, right? ;)

I mean, seriously, don't PCs in your group ever "talk shop" or train with each other, sharing lore and secrets? I personally can't think of any other example besides a solo campaign set in the most remote part of the world with no friendly contacts... and that's about as extreme as it gets.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance.

Yes, but if you want to sneak around the dungeon, the session doesn't turn into a one-on-one adventure of that sole person with +27 Stealth and the GM sitting in the other room for 2 hours with the rest of the table trying to kill the time and wondering just how exactly will they recover the scout's body if things go south.

Yeah, I've been there too, that wasn't the best session but it turned around in the end. Part of it though might be that the bonuses are all so small now though. Everyone getting a bonus to skills from proficiency means way more when the only difference between Diplomacy for the Bard who is a professional diplomat and the Rogue who spends most of their time pretending to be thin air (in-character) is around 4 points. That makes it feel way less impactful, even if it does make everyone else more competent.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


And yet you haven't done any singing, dancing, etc nor have been around it.

Here's your bonus to Performance anyway.

This isn't bad but it just seems like an odd "Foolproof" design choice. No one gets left behind but you're still going to let the Wizard to the check anyway because they have the best chance.

Yes, but if you want to sneak around the dungeon, the session doesn't turn into a one-on-one adventure of that sole person with +27 Stealth and the GM sitting in the other room for 2 hours with the rest of the table trying to kill the time and wondering just how exactly will they recover the scout's body if things go south.

It's "realistic", maybe. It's not fun, certainly.

Ditto for climbing, swimming or any other skill where the swinginess of 3.5/PF1 skill system meant that it was next to impossible to have a party where everybody was competent in those skills on elementary level.

Double ditto for new players, who aren't turbo edgelord optimizers.

Isn't that a feature - that the party has to come up with some way to make the problem go away - with spells - or aid another - or some other type of solution rather than 'stealth'.

Isn't that the problem currently - that spells make skills like this useless? Because globe of invisibility and silence make for a 'run through the dungeon generally un-noticed with -15 stealth'?

There are several things I do agree with - skills were broken, and scale bad, and need work, but having everyone be good at everything ....

I just don't see how that makes for a better game.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

I'm going to try to address this without magic.

Sneak goes first, double backs to party. They have 27 in Stealthy, do they have it in Disable Device and Perception? Call up the guy that does when you hit a lock and who knows maybe that Sneak guy didn't see the ooze on the ceiling. Or sneak forward, double back to room with buddies after getting monster/cultist attention and ambush there.

Since the way Rogues, Slayers and other sneaky classes work, they do have Disable Device. What are you doing with +27 Sneak if your DD isn't at a similar level, anyway? And everybody has maxed Perception, because it's a skill tax and you're shooting the entire party in the food if your Perception isn't as high as it's reasonably possible. Hence it is no longer a skill in PF1, just like Concentration (which was too a skill tax) was thrown out of skills in PF1.

So the Sneak will wander around, check for traps, pause to listen for enemies, scour rooms, listen to the GM describe everything, investigate strange signs and do all the usual adventuring stuff while the other players do nothing.

I speak from experience. I'm running Hell's Rebels for a party where Stealth is +5/+6/-4/+23. The +23 person is the scout and every dungeon is an exercise in frustration because see above. At this point they've pretty much given up and do every dungeon kick the door in - which is fine, but they are gated out of one popular, logical and sometimes obvious way of handling things because of how the rules work.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:

Isn't that a feature - that the party has to come up with some way to make the problem go away - with spells - or aid another - or some other type of solution rather than 'stealth'.

Isn't that the problem currently - that spells make skills like this useless? Because globe of invisibility and silence make for a 'run through the dungeon generally un-noticed with -15 stealth'?

There are several things I do agree with - skills were broken, and scale bad, and need work, but having everyone be good at everything ....

I just don't see how that makes for a better game.

For you, it might be a feature. For me, it's a flaw. There are far better ways of making players come up with creative solutions (such as puzzles, investigations and other skill challenges) than presenting them with awkward solutions to one of the most common fantasy RPG situations.

Sure the problem is with spells making skills useless, it was since day one of D&D. But in this very case even the spells don't solve your problem entirely, since you can silence and invisibility the entire party, except now they can't see each other and hear nothing. That's even more awkward.

It makes the game better because a party of people who aren't turbo masters of the system can try to sneak past the enemy like LotR heroes did or how He-Man and Man at Arms did in Skeletor's fortress. They might fail, they even should have a solid chance to fail, as to keep things exciting and risky. But they should not be gated away from that just because they entire party isn't skill monkeys.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Conversely the system is getting really game-y in an uncomfortable way. A naked 16th level goblin wizard with a strength of eight can walk into a bar with 20 fully armored level 1 dwarven fighters and will murder them unarmed without casting a single spell.

That would not happen in PF1E and it makes me disconnect from the gaming world in a way which "goblin mage throws a fireball into the tavern" would not. It presses at the fringes of my suspension of disbelief in a way the internal logic of PF1E does not.

BTW, I just remembered a gaming system which also did a drastic change from one edition to another and which did not go nearly as well as 2nd Ed -> 3rd Ed.

And that is Vampire: The Masquerade to Vampire: The Requiem (and the other affected WoD games from that edition change). Food for thought how radical change can not always lead to desired results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:

Well, I don't know which kind of campaigns don't involve *any* downtime (especially nights of drunken revelry) in inns or taverns, and think of all those long hours at campfires when the PCs probably do more than just stare in the flames while grunting at each other, right? ;)

I mean, seriously, don't PCs in your group ever "talk shop" or train with each other, sharing lore and secrets? I personally can't think of any other example besides a solo campaign set in the most remote part of the world with no friendly contacts... and that's about as extreme as it gets.

*Shrug* I keep seeing "No down time" come up in PF1 before on the forums though in practice I haven't see it myself.

But no I don't see players trying to teach each other things. Why would they, they don't get anything out of it. Nothing in the rule book so sleep, eat, prepare and recover; move on. That's how it works right?

I still think that's how it's going to work in PF2.

Side note; I try to give out small buffs, abilities or items if they do go out of their way to talk with each other, NPCs, and training. Not much but I like to reward them myself, not have the book say they get it because "This is what they do, they do it right?".

In practice though I don't get to hand too many of those out.

Gorbacz wrote:

Since the way Rogues, Slayers and other sneaky classes work, they do have Disable Device. What are you doing with +27 Sneak if your DD isn't at a similar level, anyway? And everybody has maxed Perception, because it's a skill tax and you're shooting the entire party in the food if your Perception isn't as high as it's reasonably possible. Hence it is no longer a skill in PF1, just like Concentration (which was too a skill tax) was thrown out of skills in PF1.

So the Sneak will wander around, check for traps, pause to listen for enemies, scour rooms, listen to the GM describe everything, investigate strange signs and do all the usual adventuring stuff while the other players do nothing.

I speak from experience. I'm running Hell's Rebels for a party where Stealth is +5/+6/-4/+23. The +23 person is the scout and every dungeon is an exercise in frustration because see above. At this point they've pretty much given up and do every dungeon kick the door in - which is fine, but they are gated out of one popular, logical and sometimes obvious way of handling things because of how the rules work.

And you think the PF2 is going to be better because they can? What's to actively stop your players from just saying "Well 23 is really good at stealthing and we don't want to mess it up" in PF2?

I mean they are still actively shooting themselves in the foot if they don't put points(I'm sorry Feats) into it still.

I know I sound like I'm speaking for other players but considering how these games tend to play; why would you not want your biggest bonus doing the thing?

So at a rough guess and based off Gorbaz's experience; a group has Trained, Trained, Untrained, and Expert+Skill Feats.

Maybe that guy that's Untrained is able to get to Trained. But if that one guy is still trumping them all(And the DCs rise with level anyway), why does the party suddenly expect "We can do it now and get away with it"?

Maybe I'm messing something but I don't see this as being too different from PF1 outside of you having a 0 next to that skill because you put no points into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Isn't that a feature - that the party has to come up with some way to make the problem go away - with spells - or aid another - or some other type of solution rather than 'stealth'.

Isn't that the problem currently - that spells make skills like this useless? Because globe of invisibility and silence make for a 'run through the dungeon generally un-noticed with -15 stealth'?

There are several things I do agree with - skills were broken, and scale bad, and need work, but having everyone be good at everything ....

I just don't see how that makes for a better game.

For you, it might be a feature. For me, it's a flaw. There are far better ways of making players come up with creative solutions (such as puzzles, investigations and other skill challenges) than presenting them with awkward solutions to one of the most common fantasy RPG situations.

Sure the problem is with spells making skills useless, it was since day one of D&D. But in this very case even the spells don't solve your problem entirely, since you can silence and invisibility the entire party, except now they can't see each other and hear nothing. That's even more awkward.

It makes the game better because a party of people who aren't turbo masters of the system can try to sneak past the enemy like LotR heroes did or how He-Man and Man at Arms did in Skeletor's fortress. They might fail, they even should have a solid chance to fail, as to keep things exciting and risky. But they should not be gated away from that just because they entire party isn't skill monkeys.

No.

They'll still gated off if they didn't use their skill increase on the right skill though if I understand this right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dracovar wrote:

What I see playing out now on the Paizo boards is exactly what I saw on Wizards Boards when WotC released the dumpster fire that was 4e. Right down to the boosters and detractors, the tone of the posts, underlying bitterness and hope, etc. The seeds of an edition war have been sown, really.

This happens with every major edition. It always looks like a dumpster fire. There's always some edition war mongering. There is nothing new or extraordinary about this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


For you, it might be a feature. For me, it's a flaw. There are far better ways of making players come up with creative solutions (such as puzzles, investigations and other skill challenges) than presenting them with awkward solutions to one of the most common fantasy RPG situations.

Sure the problem is with spells making skills useless, it was since day one of D&D. But in this very case even the spells don't solve your problem entirely, since you can silence and invisibility the entire party, except now they can't see each other and hear nothing. That's even more awkward.

It makes the game better because a party of people who aren't turbo masters of the system can try to sneak past the enemy like LotR heroes did or how He-Man and Man at Arms did in Skeletor's fortress. They might fail, they even should have a solid chance to fail, as to keep things exciting and risky. But they should not be gated away from that just because they entire party isn't skill monkeys.

I do agree - but making everyone great for no investment isn't the solution. A more 'real' solution is 1 skill point per skill per level - max 10 ranks - no modifiers (outside of spells or magic items, perhaps armor negatives) ever.

Still a 20 sided die to roll - still a DC check - put your party into the same situation - the rogue has what... a 9? So the rogue (who trained to be sneaky) can get through the dungeon without batting an eye - the GM in this case can allow the party to be *careful* taking a 10 for an almost automatic success - but the really noisy dwarf is still way too loud - perhaps they have to stay far back - or have pillows tied to them - or be carried?

Easier to work that out with low numbers - and in this case had the noisy dwarf just invested *some* training in moving stealthy - they could have made that check.

Average DC's of 10 would let people branch into other skills without feeling like they need to go nuts - and with 10 ranks plus a D20 and magic - would give enough headroom for people to be 'epic' at high levels.

I like the skill feats - (or skill unlocks as they used to be called) - but making everyone good I think is the wrong answer - bringing the 'DC' ranges back into the realm of 'anyone can make this - but the specialist doesn't even have to sweat' - is better IMO thank making everyone always good.

101 to 150 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / The Main Problem of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.